Advertisement

Reporting of Prostate Biopsy

  • Rajal B. ShahEmail author
  • Ming Zhou
Chapter

Abstract

The primary goal of prostate needle biopsy is to diagnose prostate cancer. Biopsy evaluation also provides important histomorphological data, including histological type, Gleason score, and tumor volume and extent, which are all critical for clinicians to prognosticate and manage patients. In keeping with the current trend of standardization of surgical pathology reports, several international pathology organizations periodically issue recommendations for the reporting of prostate cancer in needle biopsy specimens. The information that must be included in prostate biopsy reports is understandably in flux as our understanding of the pathological and molecular characteristics of prostate cancer expands and diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer continue to evolve. In addition, the prostate biopsy should be reported in a format that facilitates effective communications between pathologists and clinicians and data archival for future studies.

Keywords

Benign prostate glands Stroma Nonspecific granulomatous prostatitis Atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (adenosis) Prostate-specific antigen High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia Atypical glands suspicious for cancer Adenocarcinoma Benign prostatic hyperplasia Gleason score Grade group Unfavorable pathology % pattern 4 Tumor volume measurement Core-level reporting Case-level reporting Synoptic reporting 

References

  1. 1.
    Van der Kwast T, Bubendorf L, Mazerolles C, Raspollini MR, Van Leenders GJ, Pihl CG, et al. Guidelines on processing and reporting of prostate biopsies: the 2013 update of the pathology committee of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Virchows Arch. 2013;463(3):367–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Protocol for the Examination of Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Prostate Gland. Version: Prostate 4.0.3.0 http://www.cap.org/web/oracle/webcenter/portalapp/pagehierarchy/cancer_protocol_templates.jspx?_adf.ctrl-state=3zi3gln3s_4&_afrLoop=386262653877404#!. Accessed 15 Sept 2018.
  3. 3.
    Viglione MP, Potter S, Partin AW, Lesniak MS, Epstein JI. Should the diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia be made on prostate needle biopsy? Hum Pathol. 2002;33:796–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rubin MA, Bismar TA, Curtis S, Montie JE. Prostate needle biopsy reporting: how are the surgical members of the Society of Urologic Oncology using pathology reports to guide treatment of prostate cancer patients? Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:946–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Merrimen JL, Jones G, Walker D, Leung CS, Kapusta LR, Srigley JR. Multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a significant risk factor for prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol. 2009;182:485–90.. discussion 490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Netto GJ, Epstein JI. Widespread high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on prostatic needle biopsy: a significant likelihood of subsequently diagnosed adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:1184–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hansel DE, Epstein JI. Sarcomatoid carcinoma of the prostate: a study of 42 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:1316–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lane BR, Magi-Galluzzi C, Reuther AM, Levin HS, Zhou M, Klein EA. Mucinous adenocarcinoma of the prostate does not confer poor prognosis. Urology. 2006;68:825–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mazzucchelli R, Morichetti D, Lopez-Beltran A, Cheng L, Scarpelli M, Kirkali Z, et al. Neuroendocrine tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs: clinical significance. BJU Int. 2009;103:1464–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Osunkoya AO, Nielsen ME, Epstein JI. Prognosis of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated by radical prostatectomy: a study of 47 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:468–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parwani AV, Kronz JD, Genega EM, Gaudin P, Chang S, Epstein JI. Prostate carcinoma with squamous differentiation: an analysis of 33 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:651–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Samaratunga H, Delahunt B. Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: current opinion and controversies. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2008;30:237–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, van der Kwast TH, van Leenders GJ. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and diseasespecific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2015;28(3):457–64.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2014.116. Epub 2014 Sep 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hollemans E, Verhoef EI, Bangma CH, Rietbergen J, Helleman J, Roobol MJ, Van Leenders GJLH. Large cribriform growth pattern identifies ISUP grade 2 prostate cancer at high risk for recurrence and metastasis. Mod Pathol. 2019;32(1):139–46.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41379-018-0157-9. Epub 2018 Oct 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karram S, Trock BJ, Netto GJ, Epstein JI. Should intervening benign tissue be included in the measurement of discontinuous foci of cancer on prostate needle biopsy? Correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(9):1351–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fontugne J, Davis K, Palanisamy N, Udager A, Mehra R, McDaniel AS, et al. Clonal evaluation of prostate cancer foci in biopsies with discontinuous tumor involvement by dual ERG/SPINK1 immunohistochemistry. Mod Pathol. 2016;29(2):157–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller JS, Chen Y, Ye H, Robinson BD, Brimo F, Epstein JI. Extraprostatic extension of prostatic adenocarcinoma on needle core biopsy: report of 72 cases with clinical follow-up. BJU Int. 2010;106:330–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ye H, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Skeletal muscle involvement by limited Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy is not associated with adverse findings at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010;184:2308–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stone NN, Stock RG, Parikh D, Yeghiayan P, Unger P. Perineural invasion and seminal vesicle involvement predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in men with localized carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1998;160:1722–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vallancien G, Bochereau G, Wetzel O, Bretheau D, Prapotnich D, Bougaran J. Influence of preoperative positive seminal vesicle biopsy on the staging of prostatic cancer. J Urol. 1994;152:1152–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harnden P, Shelley MD, Clements H, Coles B, Tyndale-Biscoe RS, Naylor B, et al. The prognostic significance of perineural invasion in prostatic cancer biopsies: a systematic review. Cancer. 2007;109:13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Al-Hussain T, Carter HB, Epstein JI. Significance of prostate adenocarcinoma perineural invasion on biopsy in patients who are otherwise candidates for active surveillance. J Urol. 2011;186(2):470–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Badalament RA, Miller MC, Peller PA, Young DC, Bahn DK, Kochie P, et al. An algorithm for predicting nonorgan confined prostate cancer using the results obtained from sextant core biopsies with prostate specific antigen level. J Urol. 1996;156:1375–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Choy B, Pearce SM, Anderson BB, et al. Prognostic significance of percentage and architectural types of contemporary Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:1400–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kweldam CF, Kummerlin IP, Nieboer D, et al. Presence of invasive cribriform or intraductal growth at biopsy outperforms percentage grade 4 in predicting outcome of Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2017;30:1126–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ayala G, Frolov A, Ittman M, et al. Biological correlates of biochemical recurrence free survival using multiple markers in a large tissue microarray cohort. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2013;43:11–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yanagisawa N, Li R, Rowley D, et al. Stromogenic prostatic carcinoma pattern (carcinoma with reactive stromal grade 3) in needle biopsies predicts biochemical recurrence-free survival in patients after radical prostatectomy. Hum Pathol. 2007;38:1611–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Dorey F, et al. The percentage of prostate needle biopsy cores with carcinoma from the more involved side of the biopsy as a predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database. Cancer. 2003;98:2344–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    D’Amico AV, Renshaw AA, Cote K, Hurwitz M, Beard C, Loffredo M, et al. Impact of the percentage of positive prostate cores on prostate cancer-specific mortality for patients with low or favorable intermediate-risk disease. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3726–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maygarden SJ, Pruthi R. Gleason grading and volume estimation in prostate needle biopsy specimens: evolving issues. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;123:S58–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rossi PJ, Clark PE, Papagikos MA, McCullough DL, Lee WR. Percentage of positive biopsies associated with freedom from biochemical recurrence after low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy alone for clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology. 2006;67:349–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robert J Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Tufts Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations